2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Rick Hansen

Hon. S.

Bond

C. James

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Portraits for Our Place

C. James

Charles John McPherson

R. Hawes

Miners Memorial Day

Trevena

Cadillac Van Isle 360 race

Cantelon

Importance of small communities

Simpson

World Partnership Walk

Nuraney

Oral Questions

Solicitor General response to

B.C. Lottery Corporation issues

C. James

Hon. J.

Les

Ralston

J. Kwan

Simpson

Chudnovsky

Fleming

South Fraser perimeter road land

acquisition

Gentner

Hon. K.

Falcon

Transition plan for Port Alberni

Fraser

Hon. R.

Coleman

Petitions

M. Karagianis

C. Trevena

Tabling Documents

Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia, annual report, 2006

Petitions

C. Evans

Committee of the Whole House

Finance Statutes (Innovative

Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 30)

Horgan

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Robertson

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Finance Statutes (Innovative

Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 30)

Standing Order 81 Motion

Adoption of government business

schedule

Hon. M.

de Jong

Committee of the Whole House

Homeowner Protection Amendment

Act, 2007 (Bill 34)

A. Dix

Hon. R.

Coleman

Thorne

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Homeowner Protection Amendment

Act, 2007 (Bill 34)

Second Reading of Bills

Human Rights Code (Mandatory

Retirement Elimination) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 31)

Hon. W.

Oppal

Puchmayr

Whittred

L. Krog

Lekstrom

Farnworth

Routley

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children

and Family Development

Hon. T.

Christensen

Trevena

Hon. L.

Reid

Karagianis

[ Page 8353 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Hansen: Today in the members' gallery we have a

delegation of special visitors from the People's Republic of China. The

delegation is led by Mr. Zhang Fusheng, who is secretary of the party committee

and executive vice-president of China Ocean Shipping Co. Members of the

delegation are senior officers of China's state-owned enterprises, who are here

for a special studies program at UBC's Sauder school of business. I ask the

House to give them a very warm welcome.

C. Puchmayr: I have two constituents in the gallery today.

They are Nancy Puri and her husband Baj Puri. They are good volunteers in New

Westminster with the 137th May Day celebration and also with the Hyack Festival.

Please make them extremely welcome.

D. Hayer: Today we have visiting the Parliament Buildings

50 students from grades 10 to 12 from the Guildford Learning Centre in my riding

of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are their teachers Miss Gail McKinnon, Mr. Mark

Maretic, Miss Lindsay May, Miss Denise Roberts, Mr. Steve Robertson and Miss Amy

Moody as well as many volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules

to accompany these students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1335]

R. Chouhan: Today there are about a hundred out-patient

veterinary doctors outside expressing their views about the discrimination they

are facing. They're fighting for justice. Five doctors are inside the gallery

today joining us: Dr. Bhullar, Dr. Bajwa, Dr. Benipal, Dr. Brar and Dr. Jagpal.

Please join me in welcoming them.

R. Lee: In the gallery today we have seven acupuncture and

traditional Chinese medicine professionals. They are Dr. Harvey Hu, president of

B.C. Qualified Acupuncturists and Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners

Association — QATCMA; Dr. Arden Henley, chair, College of Traditional Chinese

Medicine and Acupuncturists of British Columbia — CTCMA; Dr. Mary Watterson,

registrar, CTCMA; Dr. Michael Chung, vice-chair, CTCMA; Dr. John Lee,

vice-president, QATCMA; Dr. Chris Vallee, MSP committee chair, QATCMA; and Mr.

Philippe Souvestre, registered acupuncturist, QATCMA member and CTCMA board

member.

Our guests are here in the House today to show us the

effectiveness of acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine, as well as how we

can provide more health care options to British Columbians. Would the House

please help me make them welcome.

J. Kwan: I'd like to join with the member for Burnaby-Willingdon

to welcome the delegation from the traditional Chinese medicine community, along

with the college. They're here to meet with government members and also with

opposition members. They would like to lobby the government to actually include

traditional Chinese medicine under MSP, particularly for low-income people. I

wish the House to make them welcome. I wish the minister will provide them a

helpful response.

J. Nuraney: In the House today we have two very special

guests. The first one is Phyllis Fox, who is the grand treasurer of the Order of

the Amaranth and who was also the grand royal matron in the past. More

importantly, she is the mother of our famous Canadian, Michael J. Fox.

Last Friday I had the pleasure of meeting Michael, who comes here

every year for his fundraising tournament for the Michael J. Fox Theatre.

Michael told me at that time that he had been able to successfully raise $114

million so far to find a cure for Parkinson's.

With Phyllis also is a friend, Kathy Stutt, who is the current

grand royal matron of the Order of the Amaranth. I would ask the House to please

make them both feel very welcome.

R. Cantelon: I have two introductions, if I may, today.

First, joining us today are Caleb Garriet and Hannah Garriet, ages 12 and eight,

who are here as home school students, accompanied by their mother and teacher,

to learn more about how the parliament behaves. I'm sure the question period

will be very informative to them.

Also with us today are other constituents of mine, Cathy and Jim

Stewart, who are known to many of us here. Would the House make all these guests

feel very welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the timely submission from the

member for New Westminster, Baj and Nancy Puri have already been introduced to

the House. I wonder if that applause would be amplified that much more if the

House were aware that they are also the proud parents of Belle Puri, a member of

the esteemed — I think we can still say that, esteemed — legislative press

gallery. They're not here just watching these proceedings. They are proudly

watching their daughter undertake her duties as a member of the press gallery. I

know that all members will want to make them welcome again.

Hon. G. Hogg: We have two residents of Surrey–White Rock.

Mr. Doug and Mrs. Ada Newell are here in Victoria today visiting their

granddaughter, an executive assistant with the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and

the Arts — Pamela Hollingsworth.

They're also celebrating Doug's 86th birthday. They're joined by

their son Shaun. Would the House please make them most welcome.

[1340]

[ Page 8354 ]

Hon. I. Chong: Next week is B.C. Seniors Week, a special

time for us to acknowledge and celebrate the older persons in all of our lives.

Since we won't be in session next week, I have the pleasure of introducing some

very special guests who have joined us in the gallery.

First of all, there are approximately 40 members who make up

branch 25 of the B.C. Old Age Pensioners group. They work on behalf of Sidney's

senior community. I know they already took a jump-start in terms of celebrating

Seniors Week during the week of May 20-26.

Joining us today are four of those members of the Sidney branch

25: immediate past president Ms. Tina Newton, past president Mr. Don Climie,

executive member Ms. Lenore Climie and Ms. Rose Rudolph, who is a member there.

In addition, they are joined by the Greater Victoria Old Age

Pensioners

chapter 191. Those representatives here today are president Clara

Halber; first vice-president Sheila Rose Richardson; Alison Acra, their

secretary. Peter Justo and Max Halber are directors.

I ask the House to please make all of these seniors very welcome

today.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the galleries we are joined by two

individuals who are members of my constituency, Chris Midmore and Nancy Kalid.

In addition to being constituents in the great constituency of

Surrey-Cloverdale, they are also active board members of the Surrey Memorial

Hospital Foundation. In fact, Chris is the chair of that foundation. They are

doing an exceptional job right now in helping to spearhead a campaign to raise

dollars to provide equipment for the expanded emergency room that the Minister

of Health is undertaking, and also the new $200 million Surrey Memorial Hospital

that is being built.

I would ask the House to please make them welcome and recognize

the efforts they're making on behalf of all the residents of Surrey.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Today in the members' gallery we have

some very special visitors from Thailand. Mr. Kosit Chatpaiboon, the newly

appointed consul general in Vancouver, is making his first official visit to

Victoria. He is accompanied by his wife Ms. Vlairatana Chatpaiboon and consular

officer Ms. Apinya Na Nakorn.

I ask the House to please join me in giving them all a very warm

welcome.

Tributes

RICK HANSEN

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, we have a very, very special

guest today, and at this point in time I would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to bring

Rick Hansen to the Bar. [Applause.]

Hon. S. Bond: Last week, on May 22, we celebrated an

important date in the history of the province and of our country. Twenty years

earlier on that date Rick Hansen rolled into Vancouver, his arms raised in

triumph at the conclusion of his Man in Motion tour. And who can forget that

tour and those poignant pictures from around the world? I know that for me, that

vision of Rick on the Great Wall of China is etched in stone in my mind, as I'm

sure it is for many members of this House. The tour lasted over two years,

covered 34 countries on four continents and raised $26 million for spinal cord

research.

[1345]

Since that time the Rick Hansen Foundation has gone on to raise

over $178 million for spinal-cord-injury-related programs and initiatives,

sponsoring research towards a cure and over 500 projects to improve the quality

of life for people with spinal cord injuries, providing them with real hope and

enabling them to achieve their dreams.

We continue to be inspired by Rick's work helping governments,

businesses and organizations make our buildings more accessible to people with

disabilities, encouraging our communities to be more caring and more inclusive,

and working even harder on behalf of spinal cord research and improving the

quality of life for people with disabilities across British Columbia. We're

pleased to be a small part of that process by working in partnership with Rick

in the Rick Hansen school program to make British Columbia schools more

accessible and more inclusive.

Speaking personally, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you there's no better

place to be than in a classroom with Rick Hansen as he shares the story of his

journey and his vision and as he inspires students of whatever age they might be

by telling them anything is possible. He's told me that on a number of occasions

— and it helps me to get through some very long days, I can assure you, Rick.

We've also provided funding to support construction of the Blusson

Pavilion, a world-class research centre at Vancouver General Hospital, as well

as the B.C. Leadership Chair for Spinal Cord Research at the Rick Hansen

Institute of B.C.

Mr. Speaker, today we are absolutely thrilled to have Rick Hansen

here with us in the House.

Rick, you are a true Canadian hero and an inspiration to all

British Columbians. On behalf of the Premier and my colleagues, I want to say

thank you for making a difference. We want to very warmly welcome you to the

House today. [Applause.]

C. James: It's with enormous pleasure and gratitude that I

join with the Deputy Premier in welcoming Rick Hansen to the Legislature. It's

really hard to believe that 20 years have passed since his triumphant return to

Vancouver, completing one of the most incredible and arduous journeys ever

undertaken in history — a journey that touched the world and certainly made all

of us as Canadians proud, a journey that also reminded us about the best in the

human spirit.

Most importantly, many people could have taken that journey as a

journey in itself, but Rick didn't do that. Rick took that journey and made a

legacy — the journey that's made a real and meaningful difference, forever

changing our society's approach to fellow citizens living with spinal cord

injuries. In the 20 years

[ Page 8355 ]

that have passed, Rick Hansen has continued to build on that legacy,

inspiring people the world over to look for a cure.

I know that Rick is a regular visitor to this building and to

legislatures across Canada, tirelessly advocating for spinal cord research and

awareness for people with disabilities. Yesterday we heard the member for

Malahat–Juan de Fuca remind us that June 10 is the fifth anniversary of the Rick

Hansen Wheels in Motion event. I know I join my colleagues and all members of

this House in inviting British Columbians, wherever they live, to take part, to

help raise money, to raise awareness for spinal cord research and to make sure

that we all continue to play our

part in Rick's legacy to people with

disabilities in British Columbia, in Canada and around the world.

Welcome, Rick, on behalf of all of us. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: I'd like to invite the Deputy Premier and the

Leader of the Opposition to personally thank Rick.

[1350]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PORTRAITS FOR OUR PLACE

C. James: Mr. Speaker, communities throughout British

Columbia are affected by growing homelessness and poverty. Here in Victoria

we've certainly seen a dramatic increase in the number of citizens living on the

street. Solving this crisis requires support from all levels of government and a

community effort which includes businesses, not-for-profit organizations and the

personal commitment of all of us.

Today I'd like to recognize the contribution of a few individuals

in my community. Our Place is a new facility, soon to open on Pandora Avenue, to

better serve the homeless community. Three of my constituents — Nick and Maggi

Woodiwiss, and artist Elfrida Shragen — have started an innovative project,

Portraits for Our Place, to raise funds for its completion.

With the blessing of Our Place, Miss Shragen has painted the

portraits of some 30 homeless individuals in Victoria, each of whom was paid a

modest fee for sitting. Earlier this month these portraits were exhibited at

city hall, with the sale benefiting Our Place.

Mr. and Mrs. Woodiwiss have also sponsored a website to provide a

profile of the Portraits for Our Place and to highlight the contribution of

other citizens who are helping the homeless community. Portraits for Our Place

is a wonderful example of grassroots community activism and of the power we all

have to make a difference.

I would ask this House to join me in recognizing the contribution

of these three British Columbians and in thanking them for the inspirational

example they're setting for all of us.

CHARLES JOHN McPHERSON

R. Hawes: On Friday, May 18, Mission lost a giant. Charles

John McPherson passed away quietly at the age of 83. Charlie taught school and

coached basketball in Mission for 36 years before retiring in 1984. He coached

the Mission AA boys basketball team to a provincial championship in 1954.

Charlie McPherson also served as an alderman for 18 years on

Mission city council and ten years on the Mission Memorial Hospital board. He

spent ten years in Kinsmen and was co-founder of the Mission Duplicate Bridge

Club and a charter member of the Mission Golf Club, bridge and golf being two

activities that he really loved. He served as co-chair of the Mission heart and

stroke fund for 12 years and president of the Lifetime Learning Society for 13

years.

Charlie was always there for anyone who needed him and could

always be counted on to donate his time and considerable energy to any

worthwhile community project. In 1992 he received the lifetime Community Service

Award from the district of Mission and in 1995 was made a freeman of the

district of Mission.

At a celebration of Charlie's life last Saturday, one of the 1954

basketball players summed up Charlie's teaching career by saying: "I'm 72 years

old, and if it weren't for Charlie McPherson, I'd still be in grade 12."

Charlie McPherson's impact on life in Mission over the years was

profound. We all share the grief of Charlie's passing with his wife Audrey and

his children Cheryl, K.C. and Doug. But we also celebrate his gift to all of us,

for he surely left Mission a better community because of his tireless

dedication.

Charlie, you're truly the essence of the Rotary motto: "Service

above self." We'll miss you.

MINERS MEMORIAL DAY

C. Trevena: Saturday, June 23 marks the 22nd Miners

Memorial Day in Cumberland. Cumberland was at the heart of the mining industry,

and every year people get together to commemorate those who died working in the

pits. Cumberland has the unhappy reputation of having been the most dangerous

mine in Canada. There were 295 miners killed there over the years.

[1355]

Like in other parts of the world, the appalling conditions spurred

on union organization. Like in other parts of the world, the mine owners fought

the workers who were coming together collectively — the workers who were

striving for their rights and for the right to work without the risk of death.

Perhaps the most renowned of those labour activists was Ginger

Goodwin. He started to work in the pits of the Yorkshire coalfield before

immigrating to the mines in Cape Breton. After taking

part in the strike there

and being blacklisted, he ended up in Cumberland and again was involved in a

strike and blacklisted. In 1917 he led a strike for an eight-hour work day for

the smelter workers in Trail.

Despite having black lung, he was considered fit for service in

the First World War and conscripted. He managed to evade the authorities until

July 1918, when he was tracked down and shot. His funeral marked the first

general strike in B.C. Every year he's commemorated with the laying of wreaths

at his gravesite.

[ Page 8356 ]

Ginger Goodwin and the Miners Memorial are linked. The memory of

workers killed underground, and the memory and legacy of a person who stood up

for them, a person who fought for the rights of working people — the right to

work for an eight-hour day, to get paid a living wage and to come home alive.

We should remember Ginger Goodwin because too many of our workers

are not getting a living wage. Too many of our workers hold down two or three

jobs and long for the eight-hour day. Too many of our workers do not come home

alive. A century on, the fight continues, and the memorials remain steadfast.

CADILLAC VAN ISLE 360 RACE

R. Cantelon: Upcoming Saturday, June 16 at 10:30 a.m., an

exciting, spectacular and beautiful event is going to occur in Nanaimo Harbour.

It's the start of the Van Isle Cadillac 360 race. It begins in Nanaimo harbour,

and it's a 580-kilometre race circumnavigating Vancouver Island, visiting many

communities on the way — again, with many community celebrations — and ending up

back in Nanaimo.

This is a unique and different event. Many of you have perhaps

watched the start of the America's Cup yachts and seen the boats tack and jostle

to try and hit the start line at exactly the right moment. What makes this

unique is the variety of boats — from 25-footers to 102-footers. The Oriole ,

built in 1921, is one of the boats. It's a beautiful, majestic square-rigged

vessel.

I think the star this year, though, will be the Atalanta .

It's a 76-foot sloop that raced in the Hobart-to-Sydney race. Sailing fans know

that's a gruelling and tough race. This boat, then known as the Ondine III ,

won that race. It would be longer than this House, and the mast would go higher

than this chamber. It's a phenomenally beautiful boat.

So here you have it — all this variety of vessels jostling for

position. To see that big vessel steaming through the water under full sail like

a freight train and do a 360 is dramatic. All these boats are going back and

forth in the harbour, tacking for position, doing 180 turns, and they do it

under full sail, under full power, without any collisions or mishaps. The

members opposite might take note that they're able to do this. Then the gun

starts, and off they go.

It's a phenomenally exciting event. I welcome you all to see it —

any of you who love to sail or have never been to sea. It's a spectacular event

to watch, so please come to Nanaimo and take it in.

IMPORTANCE OF SMALL COMMUNITIES

B. Simpson: On May 16 and 17, I had the distinct pleasure

of travelling to four smaller communities in my riding with Lieutenant-Governor

Iona Campagnolo. We travelled to 150 Mile House, where we visited a school. We

travelled to Horsefly, where we were treated to a maypole dance at the school, a

community luncheon and a trip in an authentic wagon.

Then the next day we went to Likely, British Columbia, where the

Lieutenant-Governor opened a museum, attended a school and spoke with the

children, went to a community luncheon as well, and finished the day in Big

Lake.

On all of those occasions the Lieutenant-Governor brought all of

the pomp and circumstance or the tradition of the Lieutenant-Governor's office.

We were piped in, there was a proper procession, and there were the handshakes

as the Lieutenant-Governor was introduced to every member of the community who

showed up at those events.

[1400]

The message the Lieutenant-Governor brought was that small

communities count, that small schools count and that every British Columbian has

the right to the same levels of service and attention that British Columbians

enjoy in the lower mainland. It's a very valuable message, a very timely

message. As the members of this House know, many of those communities are going

through significant transition.

Her presence was very well received. I want to express today my

heartfelt thanks to the Lieutenant-Governor for doing what she did, for the

pride and the joy she brought to those communities, and my congratulations to

the children and the community members who gave her a very heartfelt Cariboo

welcome.

WORLD PARTNERSHIP WALK

J. Nuraney: The World Partnership Walk, an initiative of

the Aga Khan Foundation Canada, is the largest annual event in Canada dedicated

to increasing the awareness and raising funds to fight global poverty.

The Aga Khan Foundation Canada is a registered Canadian charitable

organization which delivers its programs without regard to faith, origin,

ethnicity and gender.

This walk was held last Sunday at Stanley Park in Vancouver, and

some 8,000 people attended. The work of the organizers and the volunteers

reflected the commitment and the dedication to this cause. Our Premier, in the

company of the mayor of Vancouver and celebrities like Gordie Howe, attended the

event and helped to raise $1.5 million to support programs to address root

causes of poverty.

It should also be mentioned that this walk is now taking place in

nine major cities across Canada, including Victoria. I'm told that Victoria had

the largest participant crowd ever in its history.

The total moneys raised across Canada is around $6 million. Every

penny goes towards meeting the dire needs in the impoverished countries.

In the words of His Highness the Aga Khan: "There are those who

enter the world in such poverty that they are deprived of both the means and the

motivation to improve their lot. Unless they can be touched with the spark which

ignites the spirit of individual enterprise and determination, they will sink

into apathy, degradation and despair. It is for us, who are more fortunate, to

provide that spark."

As a member of the Shia Ismaili Muslim community, it gives me

great pleasure to share this work of humanity with this House. The walk takes

place every year, and the next will be on May 25, 2008.

[ Page 8357 ]

B. Lekstrom: I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. Lekstrom: It's my privilege today to introduce 50 grade

6 students from both Canalta and Tremblay elementary schools in Dawson Creek. I

will note they're from different classrooms; not all 50 are in the same

classroom.

Joining them are their teachers Jim Mah, Shane Corston and Kelly

McIntyre. As well, the parents accompanying the children today are Connie

Dilworth and Kathy Thorbergson, Will the House please make them all feel very

welcome.

Oral Questions

SOLICITOR GENERAL RESPONSE TO

B.C. LOTTERY CORPORATION ISSUES

C. James: In December 2006 the Solicitor General told

British Columbians that there was nothing to worry about. He said the B.C.

Lottery Corporation was doing its job to protect consumers. Well, yesterday's

damning report proves that the Solicitor General misled the public or was

himself misled. Either way, someone has to be held accountable for the failures

and attempted cover-up. The minister must take action. He must hold someone

accountable.

My question to the minister: if he refuses to do that, if he

refuses to stand up for British Columbians, will the minister resign?

[1405]

Hon. J. Les: Perhaps it would be helpful for the Leader of

the Opposition if I went through the chronology again of what transpired since

October of last year.

Members of the House will recall that in October last year,

concerns were raised with respect to the operations of the lottery system in the

province of Ontario. I immediately asked our gaming policy and enforcement

branch to undertake an investigation of the B.C. Lottery Corporation to ensure

that similar problems did not exist here in British Columbia.

That report was completed on the 14th of December. I was advised

that although there were some issues, in terms of its technical integrity the

system in British Columbia was working fine. I so advised the public. I should

say, as well, that the Ombudsman's investigation was commenced within a week

after the investigation of the gaming policy and enforcement branch.

Clearly, that Ombudsman's report, which was tabled yesterday, was

entirely unacceptable in terms of the conclusions that were reached with respect

to the operation of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: The minister can't duck this one. He can't try

and hide from this one. He made a statement to the public in British Columbia in

December. He said: "The issues have been fully investigated and resolved." That

was pretty clear from the minister, but the Ombudsman report said that there was

no way to substantiate the minister's claims.

Again, my question to the Solicitor General…. He's been caught up

in his own incompetence or been caught misleading British Columbians. The

minister wants us to accept that everyone involved gets off scot-free. Well,

that's not good enough.

Will the minister now resign?

Hon. J. Les: What I was attempting to convey to the member

opposite is that what I reported in December was based on information that was

provided to me at that time. I share the member opposite's outrage in terms of

the recommendations that have flowed from the Ombudsman's report.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: We all ought to be equally outraged that the

lottery system in British Columbia was not working as it should. We are

absolutely committed to making sure, first of all, that all of the

recommendations of the Ombudsman's report are fully implemented.

We will go further. We are going to bring in an outside auditor to

ensure that there is a complete review not only of the lottery system within the

B.C. Lottery Corporation but also the gaming policy and enforcement branch to

ensure that we can make further improvements that will guarantee the proper

functioning of this body in the future.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

further supplemental.

C. James: I heard the minister say that he was outraged.

Outrage isn't good enough. Action and accountability are what's needed from this

minister.

Let's remember that it was the Solicitor General himself who

ordered the investigation — the investigation that according to the Ombudsman

report turned out to be a whitewash. He is responsible for that failure. He

didn't do his job, and he didn't follow through. He left consumers vulnerable to

fraud. The incompetence and the cover-up are on his desk in that report.

If the Solicitor General disagrees, then why won't he fire the

people who were responsible for this?

Hon. J. Les: I have already said that there will be a

complete review by an independent auditor. When the results of that review come

in, the chips will fall where they may, and everyone will be held properly

accountable. That is a commitment that we intend to uphold.

Interjections.

[ Page 8358 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1410]

B. Ralston: The Lottery Corporation service plan states:

"The BCLC complies with all policy directives issued by the minister." The

minister ordered that the original investigation, which reported on December

14…. That was an investigation conducted by the gaming policy and enforcement

branch. He signed off on it.

The Ombudsman's report, which examined that report, found that the

so-called investigation didn't look at the complete complaint files — only

summaries. There were no written records of the interviews conducted.

So will the Solicitor General admit — and he's had a day to

reflect on this — that the investigation he ordered was a complete whitewash and

that he participated in a cover-up?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: It's interesting that the member opposite is

looking for different varieties of conspiracy theories here. Look, I understand

that the member opposite is not satisfied. I have news for the member opposite.

I'm not satisfied either.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Continue.

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, the review that was done in October,

November and December of last year was inadequate. It was incomplete. It was

unsatisfactory.

The Ombudsman's report is very thorough and complete. We're going

to follow through and make sure that it's completely implemented in terms of its

recommendations. Again I repeat that we're going to go further. We're going to

make sure that we're going to have an independent audit of both the gaming

policy and enforcement branch as well as the lotteries operation within the B.C.

Lottery Corporation.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The minister proposes to investigate the

investigation of an investigation. Apparently, the minister won't listen to my

advice. Perhaps he'll listen to the advice of the Premier when he was Leader of

the Opposition: "We're in a parliamentary democracy. This minister is

responsible, and this minister should have the jam to do what's right and

resign." Will you take that advice?

Hon. J. Les: I have made a commitment — and I do so again —

that this is going to be thoroughly investigated and that the consequences will

flow from that investigation. I am committed to real action and real

consequences, but it's quite apparent that the member opposite is only

interested in scoring cheap political points.

J. Kwan: What we're interested in is an accountable

government and an accountable minister. The Solicitor General's attempts to hide

information didn't end in December.

Yesterday the minister told this House that Monday was the first

time that he saw the recommendations from the Ombudsman. Yet in the Ombudsman's

own report there's a letter from his deputy that indicates the minister was

fully aware of the recommendations on May 1. The minister even wrote and replied

to the Ombudsman.

To the Solicitor General: which is it? Is he incompetent, or did

he mislead this House?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I want you to be careful on

how you phrase your questions, please.

[1415]

Hon. J. Les: I said very clearly yesterday that I was given

an embargoed copy of the final recommendations the day before yesterday. I say

again that these are important recommendations. This is an important

contribution by the Ombudsman, who operates in the province of British Columbia

to do exactly this kind of thing — to review these kinds of operations and to

make recommendations to government so that we can be sure that taxpayers and in

this case people who buy lottery tickets are fully protected.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The Solicitor General said yesterday…. He told

this House that he had not seen the report or these recommendations until

Monday. But a letter from his own deputy contradicts that. The minister received

the recommendations from the Ombudsman's office on May 1. He even met with the

deputy about those recommendations. I refer the minister to page 125 of the

report.

Again to the minister: why did he try to cover up what he knew and

when he knew it?

Hon. J. Les: I think I've repeated now for the third time

that I received the final report and recommendations of the Ombudsman the day

before yesterday. What I'm interested in is complete accountability,

transparency and openness. If it helps the member opposite, there is no attempt

to cover up anything. As I've already said, we're going to go further, in fact,

than the recommendations that have been supplied by the Ombudsman.

[ Page 8359 ]

S. Simpson: Yesterday the minister told this House: "This

is the report I received yesterday, and that's when I was made aware of these

recommendations." We know the minister was provided a letter by the Ombudsman on

the first of May with recommendations. We know the minister responded to that

letter on the seventh of May, based on comments by the Deputy Solicitor General.

The discrepancy between the minister's statements in this House yesterday and

the facts is irreconcilable and inexcusable.

Because this contradiction is very troubling and it's very

obvious, will the minister explain the contradiction between having written and

responded to the Ombudsman on May 7 and telling this House yesterday that he

only just saw the recommendations?

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure how I can be more clear. It's

clear that my answer is not acceptable to the member opposite. This report,

which I have here in my hands, was an embargoed copy that I received the day

before yesterday. That is when the finalized recommendations and in fact the

entire report were complete — the day before yesterday.

Again, this is an important contribution to ensuring the long-term

integrity of the lottery system in British Columbia. It is a valuable

contribution. These are recommendations that we want to see fully implemented.

It is important that they be implemented, and it's important that we also review

the operations not only of the Lottery Corporation but also of the gaming policy

and enforcement branch to ensure that these circumstances do not obtain again in

the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: For a minister to make a statement in this

House that is so clearly inconsistent with the facts is wrong. The minister has

offered no explanation of how he writes a letter dealing with these

recommendations on May 7, and then comes in this House and says he didn't see

the recommendations until the 28th of May.

How can we have confidence in a minister who has conducted himself

in this manner? Will the minister accept ministerial accountability and

responsibility? Will the minister conduct himself properly, and will he do the

honourable thing and resign now?

[1420]

Hon. J. Les: Again, I repeat. There are 27 recommendations

in this report. I saw them for the first time the day before yesterday.

Now, it is clear — or at least I hope it is clear to members

opposite — that in doing her work, the Ombudsman would have been in touch not

only with the B.C. Lottery Corporation but also with senior staff in my

ministry. That is completely normal.

We are open; we are accountable. We work with people, including

the Ombudsman. We want to make sure that we always cooperate fully with these

kinds of processes.

Is the member opposite really suggesting that I should have

somehow blackballed the Ombudsman and not cooperated with her in doing this

work? That would have been inappropriate, Mr. Speaker. It is entirely

appropriate that a ministry cooperates when this kind of work is being done.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister said yesterday in the House,

and he has repeated a number of times today, that he saw the report of the

Ombudsman — an embargoed copy — for the first time the day before yesterday.

The question is something else. The question is: what part of the

recommendations and what part of the content of that report did the minister

know about before the day before yesterday?

Hon. J. Les: Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the

members opposite are putting the question in a variety of different ways.

Frankly, what this discussion ought to be about is the Ombudsman's report, the

recommendations that she has made and how we are going to move forward in terms

of making sure we have a lottery system in British Columbia that everyone can

depend on.

That is what we should be discussing, and that is what I intend to

do — going forward to make sure that we implement all of the recommendations and

any further recommendations that could come from the independent audit.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm afraid it's not up to the minister to

lecture us on what we should be discussing or what we ought to be discussing.

It's up to the minister to take responsibility and answer a question for a

change.

The minister won't tell us, it appears, what he knew about the

Ombudsman's report prior to the time that he saw the embargoed copy. Let's ask

him a different question. Let's ask another question.

Was the minister informed at any point by the CEO of the Lottery

Corporation about problems in the Lottery Corporation? When did he first hear

from the Lottery Corporation itself about the problems?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, the member opposite listens very

selectively. I said clearly at the outset this afternoon that I was made aware

in December of certain deficiencies and that those deficiencies were going to be

addressed and fully implemented in terms of the recommendations being made at

that time by the gaming policy and enforcement branch.

The member opposite apparently takes exception to, as he says,

being lectured by me. What I take some exception to is a group of people trying

to lecture this side about these kinds of issues, given that they have yet to

follow through on their commitment to repay the charities in Nanaimo that they

ripped off a number of years ago.

Interjections.

[1425]

[ Page 8360 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members. We're not continuing until we get

silence.

R. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this report is about the

incompetent handling of over $1 billion in revenues. The Solicitor General

wishes to deflect attention for accountability to another day, another report,

so the Solicitor General proposes an audit to determine responsibility.

Now, I wonder if the Solicitor General can agree today that the

scope of the audit will include a review of the Solicitor General's own actions

— in particular, what he knew and when.

Hon. J. Les: I clearly said yesterday that the terms of

reference to do with the internal audit will be completed within ten days. They

will be publicly available. We will also have selected the independent auditor

by that time. I do not intend for that internal audit to be restrictive. That

internal auditor can invest myself or anybody else that he or she determines is

appropriate.

SOUTH FRASER PERIMETER ROAD

LAND ACQUISITION

G. Gentner: Mr. Speaker, 40 percent of the cost of the $1.1

billion South Fraser perimeter road is allocated towards land acquisition,

making it the largest purchase of land for any highway project in the history of

B.C. For speculators, there's a lot of money to be made here.

Can the Minister of Transportation explain how it is that a

numbered company paid $1.7 million for contaminated industrial land at 7590 80th

Avenue in Delta on February 25, 2004, and flipped it less than a year later —

only weeks before the announcement of the South Fraser perimeter road route

selection — for $3.6 million?

Hon. K. Falcon: I know it doesn't take long for those

members opposite to climb up the grassy knoll and discover conspiracies

everywhere they look. I think, again, that if the member would do his homework,

the member would know that in 2004 that was a property that was actually put

into foreclosure. That was the value assigned to that property at foreclosure.

That is a different value than market value. The member should know that.

In fact, there is a 1998 appraisal report on that same property

valuing it at $3 million. We paid $3.6 million through the Gateway project. That

was based on an independently provided market assessment.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: Well, we know the government paid $600,000 more

than the market value. There's no question there.

Interjection.

G. Gentner: Yes, it did.

Okay. Let's see. The residents with million-dollar vistas

overlooking the Fraser are still awaiting settlement. Their lives are on hold,

and yet speculators come in and buy and flip. Hmm, isn't that interesting?

There's concern in my community that there is another Gaglardi

road deal in the making, where family and friends made oodles of money because

of inside knowledge — buying land, knowing where a road was to be built. Can the

minister assure this House that something similar is not happening with B.C.'s

largest highway land acquisition?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member should be careful how he

makes those kinds of allegations or casts aspersions, because the fact of the

matter is that this is a road whose general route has been talked about and

known for almost 20 years. It's been part of a discussion with the local

municipalities for a good six years under this government. There's been no

secrecy about where this route is going to be.

[1430]

I can tell the member opposite — and the member should know — that

I have full confidence in the professional public servants that are overseeing

the property acquisition. Before acquiring any properties, they receive

independently provided market assessments, market appraisals on those

properties, and they negotiate fair market purchase prices.

When the member wants to talk about flips and kind of make all of

those kinds of insinuations…. You'd better do your homework and make sure that's

actually the case. In this case, I believe that our employees acted totally

appropriately.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

TRANSITION PLAN FOR PORT ALBERNI

S. Fraser: Catalyst announced today that 315 jobs are going

to be chopped, 185 of those in Port Alberni. To the Minister of Forests and

Range: what's he going to do? What's his plan?

Hon. R. Coleman: Next week we will actually…. I just met

with the mayor of Port Alberni yesterday, and we discussed what was in the

rumour mill at that time with regards to Catalyst. His numbers were

substantially higher, by the way, than what was actually announced by Catalyst

today.

Nobody likes to see a line in a paper mill go down. It's a concern

to all of us. We do know that the competition report told us that we were going

to have some challenges within forestry in the near future. I don't think I can

go out there tomorrow and buy the mill like you did for Skeena Cellulose and

blow $500 million. I don't think that would be the appropriate thing to do.

We're going to work with industry, as we have with the CEO

committee that we're working with now

[ Page 8361 ]

in the pulp and paper sector, to find long-term solutions in the pulp and

paper sector.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: That's comforting, hon. Speaker. Maybe I'd have

more luck if I was the Minister of Agriculture and Lands.

I'm going to try this again. The minister made a commitment over a

year ago now to visit Port Alberni, the people in Port Alberni, and he hasn't

lived up to that commitment. The minister commissioned an industrial review for

Port Alberni only because Port Alberni came here, because he didn't live up to

that promise. He's been sitting on that report, almost releasing it time and

time again, and it's still not released. You've had it for over a month now —

then this announcement.

To the minister: what transition plans do you have in place for

Port Alberni? What resources will you bring to bear to deal with your lacking in

forest policy and leadership?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows full well I've been to

Port Alberni. He keeps prattling on about that. I don't know why he thinks he

has some land to stand on to insult the minister across the House by accusing

him of something that he's already done. But that's okay. I get that.

I also get the fact that unlike the member opposite, when I met

with the mayor of Port Alberni yesterday, we talked about long-term solutions

for the Alberni Valley. We talked about the report that is going to come out

next week. We talked about the solutions we can find in economic development —

things together with that valley and with his community.

One thing I'll say about the mayor of Port Alberni. I think he's a

pretty remarkable mayor. He knows he's in a region that used to have 8,000 jobs

in forestry. He knows there have been huge changes in the forest sector that

have affected his community. He wants to find solutions.

I think, quite frankly, that community is lucky to have a mayor

who is actually trying to build a vision for that community and will work with

us to try and build that solution together. My commitment to the mayor yesterday

was precisely that, and that's exactly what I'll follow through on.

[End of question period.]

M. Karagianis: I ask leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

M. Karagianis: I have here a petition with 158 signatures

asking this House to take immediate action to ensure that Mary Manning Centre

and sexual abuse intervention programs in B.C. receive sufficient funding.

C. Trevena: I seek leave to present two petitions.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[1435]

C. Trevena: I'd like to present a petition of about 500

signatures calling for restoration of funding for child care.

I'd like to present a second petition from 405 residents along the

road from Highway 19 to Fair Harbour calling for the continued grading of this

road.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. Les: I have the honour to present the 2006 annual

report for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. Evans: I have a petition here from almost the entire

community of Edgewood, British Columbia — 200 people — opposing the logging of

beetle-killed lodgepole pine in areas designated block 1 and block 2 of the

Edgewood face area.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call in this chamber

committee stage debate of Bill 30, Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy

Fund) Amendment Act, 2007; and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the

information of members, debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Children and

Family Development.

Committee of the Whole House

FINANCE STATUTES (INNOVATIVE CLEAN

ENERGY FUND) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 30; S.

Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

section 1.

J. Horgan: Within

section 1, under the subsection 68.01 it

says, "'energy product' means," and it inventories a number of products. I'm

wondering if the minister could explain to me why propane is named in

sub-subsection (

d) and then discounted as not being a fuel oil in an explanatory

note just below that. Why was it necessary to name the product and then disclaim

it later on?

[1440]

[ Page 8362 ]

Hon. R. Neufeld: Before we start, maybe I'd introduce Dan

Green. He's director with the alternative energy policy branch in the Ministry

of Energy and Mines. And we have Jordan Goss with us from tax policy branch,

Ministry of Finance.

We wanted to capture grid propane. That means that there are some

communities, Whistler for one, that have propane in a grid system, much the same

as natural gas. But then we wanted to exclude the propane that someone would go

pick up for their barbecue or something like that at Canadian Tire, because

there are different tax scenarios in those two, and it becomes very difficult.

It's a small amount compared to the heating portion.

J. Horgan: Good answer, Minister.

With respect to

section 1(e), it says "other tangible personal

property prescribed by regulation as an energy product…." Could the minister

advise on what is contemplated in that section?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, what this does is give authority

by regulation to add further products at some time in the future, if it's so

chosen to do or if we've missed something that we should have caught this time.

J. Horgan: When I asked the minister what was contemplated,

I assumed that the inclusion in the act of language as ambiguous as that was for

a purpose beyond those issues that we have not yet imagined. So are there issues

that we might have imagined that are not articulated here but may well be in the

short term that the minister could name today?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm not trying to be difficult here, but

I'll go back to my answer that I gave already. It allows and gives the authority

to actually change by regulation some other fuel source that may come on the

scene at some further time. I'm not aware of anything that I can name right

here, but it's an enabling part of it so that you can add it later without

having to come back to the House and go through the legislative process.

J. Horgan: Then let's use an example. If in my community a

subdivision decided that they wanted to burn wood waste and heat and electrify

the neighbourhood, would they be exempted, or would that be one of the areas

that the minister contemplates?

Hon. R. Neufeld: In that scenario, they would be taxed on

their electricity bill.

J. Horgan: Well, it would be an energy product. They would

be generating energy. They would be potentially creating steam, heating their

home, and that's something that's not prescribed in this

section but something

that an individual or a group of individuals could undertake. If they did so,

would they be open to taxation under this section?

Hon. R. Neufeld: If it was deemed appropriate.

J. Horgan: Who would be deeming it appropriate?

[1445]

Hon. R. Neufeld: It would be the alternative energy branch

of the Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources in discussions with whoever that hypothetical

person or persons would be. It wouldn't just be arbitrarily done. There would

need to be some discussion about it to find out exactly what all is entailed so

they actually do the right thing.

J. Horgan: The reason I'm belabouring this point is that

citizens, when they look at this act and see subsections (a), (b), (

c) and (d),

they have an understanding of what that is. Any person can imagine in their mind

electricity, natural gas, fuel, oil and propane. But when they look at it and

they see under subsection (e), "other tangible personal property prescribed by

regulation as an energy product…." That certainly gives me pause, and it's my

role and function as critic to raise the issue here.

We can move on to another

section if I'm understanding the

minister correctly that beyond those four primary energy products, the minister

and in fact the director of an alternative energy branch are given authority by

this

section to name other tangible personal property as an energy product. If

that's what the minister is saying — that it's at the discretion of the director

as to what those items might be in the future — then we should have that on the

record.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's not at the total discretion of the

director. It's at the discretion of the minister at the end of the day and the

government, whoever the government happens to be at that particular time.

If there's any comfort I can give the member, it is energy

product. It's not any other tangible product other than energy product. It's not

the intent of the Ministry of Energy and Mines to go searching for every little

thing that we can find. But we just wanted to make sure that we had in the act

the ability to actually react to something if in fact that kind of an issue came

forward. So that's all that portion is meant to do.

J. Horgan: Further down in

section 1(3), of course, it

says: "…the purchase price of the energy product at the applicable rate

prescribed by regulation." I'm going to be asking a series of questions over the

next few minutes about the regulation process.

I'm wondering if the minister could start now at this

section and

give me an indication as to why we didn't identify the rates and regulations

within the act rather than leaving it for some time in the future where we don't

have the accountability of this Legislature.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, it's not uncommon to do this. This

is pretty standard procedure to actually have that rate set in regulation, so

that that rate can be changed by regulation rather than having to wait for a

session of the House or something like that to sit.

[ Page 8363 ]

I think we've been pretty clear in public about what the rate will

be — 0.04 percent.

J. Horgan: Then if we're clear that the rate is 0.04

percent, why not put it in the act? I know this is standard in other pieces of

legislation. The Minister of Finance would certainly be able to lecture me on

that, and I'd enjoy the discussion. But what we have here is an innovative clean

energy fund. We're creating a special account that we've already said on this

side of the House that we support.

Why would we not then take the 0.04 percent that the minister has

spoken of publicly, put it in the act so that we have transparency, we have

openness, and we have accountability to this Legislature? Why not do that now

rather than wait for regulations that the public will not have access to unless

they are on line or are able to access the statutes of this place?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This is fully transparent. I don't see

anything here that's not transparent. I had stated when we did second reading

that we'd actually get the regulations together as soon as we possibly could. We

put out a press release saying that. It's well known to people. There will be a

letter going out in utility bills in the near future explaining it. There's a

website to explain it. I don't think anything could be more transparent.

We have a difference of opinion. I say that the way we want to put

it is in the regulation, and the member wishes it to be in the legislation. It's

clear that, I guess, we disagree on that.

[1450]

I appreciate that the member supports this, because I think this

is a good bill at the end of the day. Governments, today and in the future, I

think will say this was the right thing to do in British Columbia.

J. Nuraney: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Nuraney: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce

35 students from grade 5 visiting here from South Park Elementary School in my

riding of Burnaby-Willingdon. Joining them is their teacher Joann Hunchak. With

her are some volunteers and parents who have made it possible for the students

to come visit us today to learn about the government procedures and the way we

operate. May the House please join me in giving them a good welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Horgan: The students couldn't have better tutors than me

and the Minister of Energy as we go through this important piece of legislation.

So I certainly welcome the kids to the chamber today.

The minister and I were just agreeing to disagree, which we do

periodically. But when we were at second reading…. I have read the press

releases, and I've seen the 0.04 percent. I realize that that's an infinitesimal

increase. The minister referenced an average electricity bill increase of $3 a

year; natural gas, $5 a year; fuel oil, $8 a year. We didn't get into propane

because it's a grid product, and it's not used in a lot of jurisdictions in the

province.

Does the minister stand by those figures that it would be a

$3-a-year increase on the average electricity bill based on the 0.04-percent

rate increase?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, on the average electricity bill in

the province. Now, some will be higher than that. Some may be a little bit

lower. I don't know.

For instance, at the apartment I rent I get an electricity bill

that I think runs about $6 or $7 a month. It's a pretty small amount, but there

are others that obviously will have higher electricity bills. The home I live

in, in Fort St. John, obviously has a higher electricity bill because more

people live there.

There will be some variances, but what we tried to do was the

average.

J. Horgan: For clarity then, could the minister…. Does he

have access to a figure that would be the average electricity bill in British

Columbia? I know Hydro publishes that information, and we could find it

elsewhere, but if you have it at the ready that would help in the interests of

those reading this debate. They would be able to plot themselves on the graph:

how much am I going to pay?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think we probably have that information,

but for members that are watching or people that would want to know what the

increase would be…. If it is for electricity, they take their bill — not the

final total because it's not a tax on top of the tax…. The bill is pretty

straightforward. Multiply it by 0.04, and that's what it will be.

J. Horgan: Well, I'll just advise those at home that if

they go to the B.C. Hydro website, they'd probably be able to access that

information.

Within the past number of years BCUC has approved rate increases

for B.C. Hydro in the neighbourhood of 8 percent, I guess, since 2004. This

increase will be on top of those increases. Could the minister advise us at what

time he believes the regulations will be published so that the public will have

a clear understanding of where the increases will rest?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The levy regulation that the member's

asking about will be ready sometime about mid-June so that this can take effect

July 1.

I don't know the exact rate increase for B.C. Hydro, but it

certainly wasn't 8 percent. It was much less than that. I think probably more in

the neighbourhood of about 3.5 percent or something in that neighbourhood. I

should know that number. I don't have it with me, but it certainly wasn't eight.

[1455]

[ Page 8364 ]

J. Horgan: What I have in front of me is an increase in

2004 of 4.85 percent and an additional rate increase of 3.6 percent in 2007. I'm

adding them up to get to that number. On subsection (4)(a), "immediately report

the matter in writing to the commissioner," could the minister advise who the

commissioner is in (4)(a).

Hon. R. Neufeld: The answer to the question is the

assistant deputy minister of revenue programs, Ministry of Small Business and

Revenue.

Just further back, just so we get it right on the record — when

you added those two numbers together, I believe the rate increase that Hydro

applied for was the higher number that you gave. What the B.C. Utilities

Commission gave was the lesser number.

J. Horgan: Still within

section 1 — it's a long

section —

subsection (5) says the following: "…products received on or after the date on

which the

section comes into force, including deliveries received under a

contract entered into before that date." Isn't that retroactive taxation? If

I've entered into a contract to purchase a commodity or a good, I'm assuming I'm

going to pay that price, not an additional cost upon delivery.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm told that the tax applies when the

purchase is made, not when the delivery is made. I'm sorry. It's when the

purchase is made, not when the contract is made. It's standard, I guess, in

taxation.

J. Horgan: I'm going to say: "It's standard in taxation?"

I'm looking at the taxation expert, hoping that I'll get a head nod. Okay, I

won't belabour that point, then, and I'll take the minister on his word. I will

just say that that would look pretty good for

section 1.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

J. Horgan: Under

section 3, "Regulations in relation to

Innovative Clean Energy Fund levies," in subsection (

a) we're again back to this

"tangible personal property," to which most of the folks, even the grade 5s, are

probably saying: "What the heck is tangible personal property?" Again, could the

minister assist me and those in the gallery with the definition of what he's

getting at in that section?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm informed that tangible personal

property — and I'm sure the member is aware of what tangible personal property

is — is something you can touch, feel, smell or whatever. The tax applies to

that, and that's, again, another standard description in legislation for taxing

things — tangible product.

J. Horgan: Well, let's just look at subsections (

a) and (

b) together. In subsection (

a) we are "prescribing tangible personal property as an

energy product," and in (

b) we're "excluding tangible personal property from the

definition of 'energy product….'" I know I'm lost. Maybe we can try that one

more time.

[1500]

Hon. R. Neufeld: Certainly, I can understand why the member

is asking the question. We had the discussion about tangible personal property

as an energy product, and we also had that discussion earlier in

section 1,

energy product. We want to have the ability to do that at a later time. That's

why we're actually defining them.

The second one, (b), says "excluding tangible personal property

from the definition of energy product…." So it becomes very difficult when you

start getting down to thinking exactly what you're going to tax and what you're

not going to tax.

If you're going to tax everything that is an energy product, you

would end up in a store taxing the little propane bottles that fit on camp

stoves and the little kerosene cans. The list goes on and on and on.

The difficulty that puts retailers in, in trying to identify all

that…. We're trying to simplify some of the tax issues in the province, so we

want to get away from those kinds of things. They're an energy product, but we

want to be able to actually just do the ones that we said in

section 1.

J. Horgan: The minister came right to where I wanted to go.

Since we did a reasonably good job of getting through

section 1 with the

prescriptive energy products, I thought that we need not go to it again. I'm

assuming, then, because we're dealing with an amendment to another act, that's

why we're repeating ourselves in more ambiguous terms than we did the first time

around.

Hon. R. Neufeld: To actually prescribe things, I'm told

what you need is the regulation power to be able to do that. That's what

section

135.1 does.

J. Horgan: Then we get down to subsection (2). I know there

are many following at home, but for those who aren't, I will read it out for the

kids from Burnaby.

Subsection (2) says: "Regulations under subsection (1) may be

different for one or more of the following…." Then we have an inventory again of

four items, which we would have been better served by repeating those four —

electricity, natural gas, fuel oil and propane. Instead we say: "(

a) different

energy products; (

b) different classes of persons; (

c) different classes of use

of energy products; (

d) different classes of distribution or delivery of energy

products…."

I'm wondering if the minister could explain the importance of this

section to achieving the objectives of the act.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It is always interesting to deal with

legislation. It's written in legalese, and what is supposed to simplify it is

the regulations afterwards so the people can understand it. I don't know. Maybe

the member across the way is a lawyer. I'm not sure about that.

[1505]

Interjection.

[ Page 8365 ]

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, I'm certainly not blaming the member

for Nanaimo. But he is one of those lawyers, and I know that.

What it allows is the ability to deal with the complexity of the

energy market, and this

section will do it. So if I go to: "(

b) different

classes of persons…." The member knows first nations are taxed differently on

reserve than off reserve or others off reserve. So that's one explanation for

that one.

Different classes of use of energy products — that's (c). Farmers

would be one of those that are in there because they're taxed in different ways

than others.

Different classes of distribution or delivery of energy products.

We talked about that earlier. That's the grid system — the propane, for

instance; the communities that are on grid propane. So you can actually capture

those but not everything else.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

J. Horgan: In

section 4, under "Innovative Clean Energy

Fund special account…." I think we'll spend a bit of time on this, if the

minister will indulge me. Subsection (2)(

b) says: "any other amounts received by

the government for payment into the special account."

As I understand special accounts — and we have our finance person

at your right — the fund is filled by moneys outlined in this act. What other

payments would be contemplated in this section?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That allows that act to receive money.

Let's say the federal government wanted to actually contribute some money, which

would be great, into that kind of

an act, that kind of a fund…. I don't think

the member would oppose that, and neither would we. Or an individual or a

company may want to do that. Who knows? So that enables that to happen.

J. Horgan: I'm just delighted to have the opportunity to

say that the minister may be dreaming in Technicolor if he thinks the federal

government is going to come. I'm glad I got the opportunity to get that on the

record.

Further down, then, we have subsection (3), the Financial

Administration Act, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. It

says: "…the minister charged with the administration of this

section may pay

money out of the special account…." I'm assuming that we're referring to the

Minister of Finance here?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources.

J. Horgan: So in subsection (3)(

a) where it says: "…for

projects, programs or initiatives that minister considers will…." The "that"

there is the Minister of Energy?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes.

J. Horgan: Roman numeral (

i) on the following page — page 4

in the act that I've taken out of my binder — says: "…address specific British

Columbia energy issues, or related environmental issues that have been

identified by the government…." I'm just wanting to know if the minister could

advise us how the government will identify these projects.

Hon. R. Neufeld: If you go down to (ii) there it says: "…do

one or more of the following…" and it lists it out. But government will be able

to deal with issues that deal with climate change and those kind of things that

we could do that would benefit British Columbians in a whole in regards to those

kind of things, or innovation — those kind of things that will help British

Columbians consume less energy products.

[1510]

J. Horgan: Then, the levy will be 0.04 percent on top of

energy costs, as we learned in the front of the bill. Now we're at the

distribution of that fund, and I think that's a fairly comprehensive list. I'm

pretty comfortable with that. I don't know if we got a nod from my colleague

here.

Again, I want to know how the government is identifying the

distribution of that fund. Certainly, it's at the discretion of the minister,

but is there an application process? Is there going to be an advisory panel? If

there is an advisory panel, who would be on it and how will they be selected?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's anticipated that we'll have an

advisory panel set up so that the decision is not just made by the minister.

We're going to actually look for some skill sets on that committee. Maybe I'll

just read them to the member so he can hear what they are: (1) an

entrepreneurial or business development background — we would hope to have;

(2) capital investment experience; (3) understanding of key energy and environmental

issues; (4) expertise in alternative energy, energy efficiency and conservation;

and (5) we would look for people with understanding of successful program

development and delivery.

Those are just a number of things, because we're going to try to

get a good cross-section of people to give that advice to government, and

government will make the final decision.

J. Horgan: I apologize. I didn't hear the number of

individuals. I did hear the criteria that the minister laid out, and that would

be helpful.

I noted that the minister referenced a piece of paper over there.

I'm wondering if it would be possible to table those criteria, or he could

direct me to whether it's on the website. If it's contemplated that it will be

put on the website, that's sufficient for me. But if there are criteria, as I

heard them, I think the public would want to be aware of them in an open and

transparent way.

Again, I didn't hear the number of persons. Could the minister

also advise when they would be appointed and when they would start spending the

money?

[ Page 8366 ]

Hon. R. Neufeld: We haven't determined the number of

persons yet, and I don't know whether we'll have a set number — eight, ten, 12

or whatever. We'll obviously want to get some of the experience that I listed

already in people who would sit on that committee. We would, certainly, when we

go out to search.

We haven't gone out to search for people yet because the bill

hasn't been passed. Once we get the authority to start doing that, then we'll

start the process. We can't start collecting till July. That's the very

earliest. That gives us some time to actually start putting this in place.

We have board resourcing in British Columbia to help us to find

those kind of people — a good cross-section of people around the province that

could serve on that kind of a committee and provide the information and the

advice that government would and should need before it makes decisions about

disbursal of the funds.

The member knows this. July 1 you get the full $25 million. When

we would start spending would be when it made good sense to start spending it —

when there are things in place that meet all the goals and objectives that we

think should be there to start spending that money. That's not at any specific

time. That might be a number of months after July 1. It might be three, four,

five months — I'm not sure — depending on what comes forward.

Secondly, what's going to come forward are a whole bunch of ideas,

I'm sure, from a whole bunch of different people, so we have to evaluate all

those in a serious way. That committee will have to do that. It will take a

while to put all that in place.

[1515]

J. Horgan: The Liberal agencies, boards and commissions

body will approach individuals and ask them to serve, and they'll do so. You

said eight, ten or 12. It will be more than one, I assume.

The other question I would want to ask is, as there is a cap….

Again, I'm going back to second reading debate from the minister. There's no

reference to it that I can see here, that there was a cap on the heavy

industrial users of a maximum of $500,000 a year as part of the levy.

There will be more than one person on the advisory committee.

Multiple persons will advise or work with the secretariat, presumably within the

alternative energy branch, that will then report to the minister. That's how I

see it happening. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I apologize. When the member was asking

the last part of his question, I didn't understand what he was saying because I

was speaking to the person beside me. I apologize for that.

I know a notice went out in regards to…. No one would pay more

than $500,000 per calendar year. We have been reviewing that, obviously, with

the heavy industry users that would be part of that. There are not many of them

in the province, but I think the member would understand from question period

today some of the difficulty that the forest industry, which is a high consumer

of electricity, is having.

We're reviewing that target of what we should charge that would

still be meaningful, but still not tax them too much because of the difficulty

that they're having right now. So maybe I could leave that with the member.

That's under review. It certainly wouldn't be any more than that. I would

guarantee it's going to be less. That number where it's going to hit still

hasn't been decided on, but we are working on that.

Maybe the member could ask me the rest of the question, and I'll

listen to it this time.

J. Horgan: I should be seeking apologies. You ask six

questions; it's little wonder that you're only hearing a couple of them or

trying to respond to them. I shouldn't ask you six questions at once; I should

ask you one at a time.

Your response concerns me that heavy industrial users may well get

an exemption or a break when the regulations come forward. Again, I know we

won't be seeing those until after this House rises, but if I heard the minister

correctly…. Let's just stick on this for a moment. Heavy industrial users will

be paying less than 0.04 percent of the levy — potentially?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't think I used the word "exemption."

What I said was that we know that there are large energy consumers, both of

natural gas and electricity, in the province, and then there's the average

homeowner. What we did is look at the $500,000 cap that we had put in place. Any

large consumer would have to pay up to that amount. Anything over and above that

would be refunded.

In light of what's taking place in the industry today, we're

saying that may be less. That will mean that it will take more than a year to

collect $25 million, because that's the target — $25 million. It won't take that

much longer. It would take a little bit longer but reduce the financial burden

that we would put on some of the companies that are in some pretty heavy

difficulty now — that specifically being the forest industry. So that's what

we're looking at trying to do, but the rate will be the same.

G. Robertson: I seek leave to give an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Robertson: I would just like to welcome students,

teachers and parents from Talmud Torah School in my riding, in Fairview.

Many of the students also live in the Minister of Finance's

riding. Would the House please give them a big, robust welcome.

Just in case they're wondering, I am actually below you,

and you can't see me, kids.

[1520]

Interjections.

G. Robertson: They're not there? After all that.

[ Page 8367 ]

An Hon. Member: They're in the precincts.

G. Robertson: They're in the precincts. The next bunch is

coming in soon.

Debate Continued

G. Robertson: A question to the minister. Clean energy

technologies are identified several times in the bill, and obviously clean

energy is referred to in the title of the bill, and yet there's no definition

for clean energy or clean energy technologies. Can the minister explain why

there is no definition?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's difficult to contemplate everything

and put it in a piece of legislation, but here are some examples. I'll read out

some examples that we are contemplating.

Renewable resources. Examples would be biomass; ocean; hydro;

solar; wind; geothermal; improvements in the development and use of

non-renewable resources; conventional and unconventional oil and natural gas;

energy carriers and storage — an example of that would be hydrogen or fuel

cells; gasification; carbon capture and sequestration; emissions management;

energy systems integration; power measurement and management; energy-efficiency

and conservation; transportation — an example of that would be engine, vehicle

and alternative fuel technologies that could be used in vehicles; fuels —

biodiesel and ethanol; waste energy capture and utilization.

Those are just a few of the examples that we have here.

G. Robertson: That's a mighty long shopping list in terms of

trying to define clean energy technologies. Of particular concern was hearing

that non-renewables are envisioned as fitting within the clean energy realm. The

minister mentioned improvements in the use of non-renewables and listed a number

of non-renewables that may apply.

Can the minister clarify that again and maybe lay out

approximately what's envisioned? Is it a significant component of the clean

energy fund investments that may go into improved use of non-renewables?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's a portion of it. When the member says

it's a mighty long shopping list, he's right, and those are just a few examples.

There could be a lot more examples. Once we start finding out from individuals

and different companies or from those who are putting their minds to looking at

how we can conserve energy in any known fashion, I think that as long as it's

reasonable and it makes good sense for British Columbia, we have an obligation

to look at that.

We don't want to exclude anything. We want to be more inclusive

than exclusive. That's all we're trying to do so that we can do the best thing

that we possibly can for the province.

G. Robertson: My concern here, though, is this bill and

this fund, the innovative clean energy fund. The use of the term "clean energy"

typically does not include the use of non-renewable resources, in particular the

combustion of fossil fuels, which are by definition not clean energy. So I'm

surprised to hear that there wasn't a more specific definition for clean energy

and, just for the sake of a test balloon, that it was specific to zero-emission

energy — zero greenhouse gas emissions.

Is there anything envisioned in terms of a direct relationship to

the greenhouse gas emissions of the energy and the energy technologies being

affected here? Is there any commitment that it is zero-emission or

greenhouse-gas-emission-free technology?

[1525]

Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate the member's questions. What

we're trying to do…. We are dependent on fossil fuels. He and I have had this

discussion every year since the member has been here. We will be for a long time

in the future. There's no silver bullet that Monday morning changes us over from

what we're using today.

What we need to do is actually think smarter about how we use

fossil fuels today. This fund could help us in figuring out how we do

sequestration and how we clean up the flaring that's being done right now in the

production of oil and gas and sequester that or produce it instead of just

burning it off as greenhouse gas.

That all goes at the end of the day to looking at reducing

greenhouse gases in British Columbia and hitting a target of 33 percent.

G. Robertson: I seek leave to make another introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Robertson: I understand again that the students, teachers

and parents from Talmud Torah School are here in the House. We'd like to give

them all a big welcome. I'm right down below you; you can't see me on the

opposition benches. Welcome all of you from Talmud Torah to the House.

Debate Continued

G. Robertson: I'll just return to one last question here on

clean energy and the definition or lack thereof of a definition. It's of great

concern to me and to many entrepreneurs in the clean energy sector — a number of

whom are actually in the province this week with the delegation accompanying

Governor Schwarzenegger.

Clean energy and innovation in clean energy is quite specific to

renewable energy technologies in many places, in terms of the definition. I

think the real concern here is that with such a broad scope and with the ability

to splash these funds around into basically anything that has anything to do

with energy in B.C…. If it can be construed as being slightly cleaner than the

current method of combustion, use, transportation, etc.,

[ Page 8368 ]

it is somehow going to qualify for the clean energy fund and potential

funding and support.

Many people, I think, assumed, when they heard the energy plan,

read the energy plan and saw the government's intention to put forward a clean

energy fund, that these funds were to be invested in new clean energy

technologies that were all about sustainability, about zero emissions and about

renewable energy.

I'll just, again, maybe ask for a final point of clarification on

this. I'm very concerned that basically very little funding is actually going to

go into the next generation of clean energy that is truly renewable and

sustainable and that it will continue to support maybe slightly more efficient

use of what we've got, which is not good enough.

Will the minister give his sense of what kind of split we're

talking about here? What will be available, in terms of a percentage out of the

proceeds of the clean energy fund, for zero emission, clean energy, renewable

energies that are the future inevitably of energy generation and use in this

province.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Maybe we'll get back into a bit of debate

from estimates. There has been more clean energy generation completed in British

Columbia in the last six years than there was in the ten years previous. I think

the member would agree with me that we should look at those natural gas–fired

plants that are generating electricity, that were built during the 1990s, and

try to figure out how we actually sequester the greenhouse gas.

The member may not be interested in the answer, but I'm certainly

here to give him an answer. We don't have an amount. We don't predetermine that…

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, Members. Background noise is getting a

little bit loud. I'm trying to listen to the Minister.

Hon. R. Neufeld: …in this act. What we are trying to do is

be inclusive and not exclusive. The member may want to do that.

[1530]

I guess, finally, I would remind the member that on division on

second reading, when he had a full read of the bill, he stood and voted for it.

I can only assume that he's in total favour of it and hope that we can get on

with getting this bill in place and doing the great things that British Columbia

can do.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:31 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

FINANCE STATUTES (INNOVATIVE CLEAN

ENERGY FUND) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Bill 30, Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment

Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the House do recess for five

minutes.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:32 p.m. to 3:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Standing Order 81 Motion

ADOPTION OF

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

SCHEDULE

Hon. M. de Jong: I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 81.1,

to advise the House that in the absence of an agreement between the Opposition

House Leader and myself — the two parties, opposition and government — an

agreement as it relates to the completion of business between now and the

scheduled end of the session, I move:

[Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2) the following

schedule be adopted

for the completion of debate on Bill (No. 31) intituled Human Rights Code

(Mandatory Retirement Elimination) Amendment Act, 2007 , Bill (No. 34) intituled

Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007 , and Bill (No. 37) intituled

Legislative Assembly (Members' Remuneration and Pensions) Statutes Amendment

Act, 2007 :

Thursday, May 31st

5:30 p.m.

Bills 31, 34 and 37 (completion of

2nd reading, committee stage

and 3rd reading)

Unless previously completed at the times and dates mentioned, the

Speaker and the Chair of Committee of the Whole will forthwith put all necessary

questions for the disposal of the various stages of the Bills indicated, without

amendment or debate. Any divisions called on the second or third reading of the

Bills may be taken in accordance with Standing Order 16 and all other divisions,

including amendments in the House and divisions in the Committee of the Whole

will be subject to the provisions of Practice Recommendation No. 1. Proceedings

under this motion shall not be subject to the provisions of Standing Order 81 or

the Standing or Sessional Orders relating to times and days of sittings of the

House.]

[1540]

[ Page 8369 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 43

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Hawkins

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 30

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 34,

the Homeowner Protection Amendment Act.

[1545]

Committee of the Whole House

HOMEOWNER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 34; K.

Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 3:49 p.m.

section 1.

A. Dix: As we start with this debate, perhaps the minister

can explain these important amendments to the

definitions, to help introduce

this

section of the debate.

[1550]

Hon. R. Coleman: Before I start, I will introduce the staff

with me today. Wendy Acheson is the manager of licensing and the deputy

registrar for the Homeowner Protection Office. Ken Cameron to my left is the

chief executive officer of the Homeowner Protection Office. Mary Freeman is the

associate deputy minister of the Ministry of Forests and Range and Ministry

Responsible for Housing, office of housing and construction standards.

To answer the question, the significant definition changes include

a "new home" to capture those that are being constructed or substantially

reconstructed. The amendment addresses the problem of residential builders using

the current definition as a loophole to avoid licensing and home warranty

insurance requirements because the current definition does not include buildings

that are under construction.

Builders have successfully argued in court that unless they have

completed building a new home, the offence provisions of the act do not apply.

This

interpretation is at odds with the intent of the legislation to have

builders licensed while they build new homes and that they must obtain home

warranty insurance prior to being issued a building permit.

The amendment also ensures that homes that are being substantially

reconstructed are captured by home warranty insurance. In situations such as

fire rebuilds, very little remains of the previous home and the subsequent

purchaser might expect that they are purchasing a new home with an applicable

coverage.

Amending the definition of "owner builder" to mean an individual

with a valid authorization issued by the registrar…. The substantive provisions

regarding the authorization are in

section 20 of this act.

The proposed amendments enable effective and efficient compliance

and enforcement mechanisms combined with an appeal process. Consequently, new

definitions are introduced, such as "appeal board," "authorization," "compliance

officer," "compliance order," "monetary penalty" and "public registry."

D. Thorne: I wanted to ask some questions about the

definitions. I wanted to ask about the repealing of the definition of "owner

builder" and the substitution and the rationale behind that particular change.

Hon. R. Coleman: That's what I just read out to the member

in my answer to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I read that into the record.

I could read it again, but basically, it is…. "New home" is to capture those

that are being constructed or being substantially reconstructed. The reason is,

basically, to bring this into line. I could go through the entire definition

again, but I'm sure the member can also pick it up out of Hansard .

We're saying that we need to properly define what a new home is so

that we can be able to apply the law for those people that want to avoid the law

with the warranty as being new home builders. Basically, the amendment addresses

the problem of residential builders using the current definition as a loophole

to avoid licensing and home warranty insurance

[ Page 8370 ]

requirements because the current definition does not include buildings that

are under construction.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

D. Thorne: Okay. I just need a minute here to read this. I

need a little time here because I wasn't expecting to have this come forward

this afternoon. I was in the middle of something reasonably important in serving

my constituents and rushed in here and was told that I would be up in the House.

[1555]

section 14 where the issue is the security…. One of the issues

in this was the security of directors. I understand that with this amendment we

won't be asking for any level of security from a director. I'm wondering in the

face of problems that we all know about in the housing industry and with

warranties, etc…. I know that the HPO has gotten a lot of these issues under

control, but we are changing the way we licence directors or the way we allow

companies to register. I'm wondering what the rationale is around not having any

level of security be required.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for clarification, this isn't the

section that deals with the member's question. That's actually

section 20 of the

act. Basically, when we get there, we could discuss….

This actually allows the registrar to issue a licence to a person

who has the experience, training or competence equivalent to the prescribed

qualifications under the old definition within the old section. It authorizes

the registrar to amend licences on application and payment of a fee.

Then it also removes the requirement that a corporation be

licensed only if one of its directors is licensed, and to require…. This now

changes. This is the big change. It requires the corporation that applies for a

licence to file with the registrar a statement disclosing the identity of the

individuals who control the corporation.

D. Thorne: Can I have a list, so it can be read into the

record, of the prescribed qualifications for licensing and the prescribed

conditions, please?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the member was caught off guard

getting in here, but that's just the way legislation goes for a minister

sometimes.

What I'll do is I'll read you in the purposes and the significance

of the amendments to

section 9. The question the member has is actually

prescribed in some speaking points and stuff that I can give her in

section 20,

which basically outlines that. If the member wants me to do that now, I am happy

to do that as well, if she wants to know what those qualifications are. So maybe

you could give me that too, and I will do that.

Basically, the purpose of this

section is that it clarifies the

powers of the registrar to determine qualifications for licensed residential

builders. It removes the requirement that the directors of a corporation be

individually licensed and adds the requirement that a corporation disclose the

identity of the individuals controlling the corporation. It permits the

Homeowner Protection Office to create an application process and charge a fee

for amendments to licences partway through the licence period.

The significance is that the amendments to

section 14(2)(

a) and

the new section (14)(2.1) clarify the power of the registrar in determining

whether an applicant is qualified. The registrar will also have the authority to

devise and administer examinations.

This is something that has been asked for, for a long time with

regard to the Homeowner Protection Act, and of course, this act hasn't really

been touched for many years. The significance is also that the regulatory

provisions are expected to address specific experience, training and

equivalencies to determine competency.

[1600]

When I get to

section 20, I will — actually, in a second — outline

what will happen with the outline of the qualifications with regards to the

regulatory provisions. That regulation will obviously be written after the act

is brought into force.

This is significant because it makes it clear that the registrar

has the authority to evaluate any qualifications of applicants prescribed by the

regulations by utilizing a variety of methods. Such authority is necessary to

make the implementation of a set of prescribed qualifications and conditions

practicable.

The practice of the warranty industry is to provide coverage for

companies rather than for individuals. Licensing of individual directors is

therefore impractical when one of the requirements of licensing is warranty

coverage. However, it is very important to be able to hold individuals

accountable for their actions on behalf of the company, and these amendments

achieve that.

For business reasons, licensed residential builders frequently

change their name, company structure or directors, as the member has spoken

about before, all of which require the Homeowner Protection Office to revaluate

the licence prior to approving the change. Creating a formal application process

for such changes recognizes the value of the change of the licensee. Changes to

the licence implemented on renewal would not attract a fee.

For the member, basically, the criteria and regulation for an

owner-builder authorization will include the following but won't be precluded by

adding other things by regulation in the future as we identify how we're going

to qualify builders.

The first would be the type of dwelling unit eligible for an

authorization — for example, a single-family detached home.

The intention to use a home for personal use.

The applicant or cohabitant has not within a specified period of

time built a new home under an authorization. Periods specified in regulation

are expected to be about 18 months after occupancy on the first home, three

years on the second home and five years for the third.

[ Page 8371 ]

The applicant intends to manage all or substantially all of the

construction of the new home.

The applicant is the owner of or has a prescribed interest in the

land, such as a long-term lease. The applicant intends to maintain his or her

interest in the land for a period of at least one year.

And the applicant does not have a history of non-compliance with

the act.

D. Thorne: I'm wondering if the minister could give me some

examples of individuals who might not meet the prescribed licensing requirements

but who might be granted a licence anyway. Would this ever happen? Would there

be any examples of that?

Hon. R. Coleman: What I read out was the owner-builder. On

the other side, there's a licensed residential builder. Now, there is not a

regulation today that identifies criteria for a licensed residential builder.

It's one of the weaknesses in the act that we're trying to fix here today.

What we're going to do is have the ability for the registrar to

outline what those qualifications and criteria are for the licensed residential

builder in regulation, which will be developed after the act is passed. So I

can't give the member an example today because there is nothing to refer back to

yet.

D. Thorne: Okay. I look forward to that.

I'm assuming, then, that some of that will be taken care of in the

regulations that will be done by cabinet. I've already expressed some of my

concerns about the magnitude of those regulations, which will be done behind

closed doors. I think some of them should be debated in the House, and I am

alarmed and disappointed that they won't be, but I have to, of course, accept

that.

[1605]

I have a couple more questions on this section. I'm wondering in

14(a), under this section, how would an individual be disqualified if he or she

applied as an individual, and under what conditions would that happen?

Hon. R. Coleman: Somebody coming in with no experience or

training, without the ability to build the house and without a warranty provider

wouldn't be allowed to get a licence. Unless they meet some qualifications, can

prove they can actually build a home properly — which would be the level of

qualifications developed by regulation…. Even if they had all of that but they

couldn't get a warranty, they're not going to get a licence. If they don't get a

warranty provider, there's no way they're getting a licence to build a house in

British Columbia unless they're an owner-builder. That's a different discussion.

The regulations will be developed in an open process with industry

because that's what we've done as we've come through the whole Raising the

Bar and all the other things we're doing with regards to building. Although

the member may want to debate the regulation in the Legislature, the fact of the

matter is it will be done in an open and transparent way and come to cabinet for

final approval.

The reason we are here and we do things by regulation, quite

frankly, is the reason we're here. The time it takes to develop legislation — if

we find a flaw with trying to develop a qualification — and to get back to the

House can take two years. The member is obviously familiar with the issues in

and around the leaky condos a number of years ago. You need to at least be able

to react on the ground at some level with regards to regulations sometimes when

you need to be able to adapt.

D. Thorne: I've already expressed my opinion to the

minister that he won't find me arguing against most of this stuff because I

don't think it even goes far enough. I would like to see more stringent controls

and bigger changes to some of these sections to protect the consumer.

I have to say that I find it quite ironic that we're talking about

this issue — about regulations and about somebody knowing something — when just

yesterday I introduced a private member's bill around regulation of property

inspectors when so many of them know nothing and have certificates. I'm hoping

that this government will see its way clear to support the bill calling for that

kind of regulation as well, because it's all really part and parcel of this same

thing.

I have one more question, and it's around 14(3). I'm just

wondering why the original

section was repealed in the first place. It's not

specifically talked about in Raising the Bar , I don't think. I'm just

wondering: have there been substantial requests to change this to what the new

subsection (3) is going to be? Any comments on that to be made?

[1610]

Hon. R. Coleman: The reason we are repealing is because

we're replacing it with a new section. The new

section basically tightens it up.

It actually makes it more accountable because for business reasons licensed

residential builders frequently change their name, company structure, directors

— all of which require the Homeowner Protection Office to re-evaluate the

licence prior to approving the change.

Creating a formal process of application for such a change

recognizes the value of the change to the licensee. Changes to a licence

implementation and renewal would not attract a fee, but it does keep track of

who's who with what company.

D. Thorne: I guess my last question on that, then, to the

minister would be…. Knowing my concerns that this doesn't go far enough, this

still allows numbered and shell companies to exist in British Columbia. I just

ask the minister why we didn't take this particular change, this amendment,

further and eliminate that possibility, knowing the problems that sometimes come

up down the road.

Hon. R. Coleman: We'll just agree to disagree on this, but

basically, just so the member understands, no matter what transfer takes place,

the warranty stays in

[ Page 8372 ]

place for the consumer. The consumer is protected by the warranty because the

licensed residential builder is licensed at the front end, no matter what

company it is. If they change companies, it still doesn't make any difference

because the warranty is still there for the consumer.

D. Thorne: I just want to say…. I mean, I hope the

minister's optimism holds. I'm still, as Housing critic, getting calls from

people who are having problems collecting through their warranty companies.

There are outstanding cases.

I know that the staff at the HPO is doing their very best to move

this along and get this sorted out. But there are warranty companies that stall

as long as they can. There are many, many rumours out in the community, where if

a claim doesn't pay or doesn't pay quickly, a builder — and heaven only knows if

that's a legitimate builder or a shell company or a legitimate builder under a

shell company or a numbered name or whatever — stays on sort of a good list.

They're still thought of as a good developer rather than somebody that you have

to watch out for.

There are lots of little ins and outs around this area. It

certainly is one of the troubling areas, because this bill is basically

housekeeping, but that is one area that is of concern. That's my final comment

section 9.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for the member, warranty companies

are regulated by the Financial Institutions Commission, who can respond to bad

behaviour of both warranty companies and other ones.

If the member, quite frankly, has specific examples, we'd love to

hear about them at the Homeowner Protection Office. She can forward them into

there, and we'll look into them.

I should, though, also caution the member that this is an

insurance relationship. It's like somebody that comes to your office and says: "ICBC

is not giving me the right thing on my claim." Then you start looking into it,

and you find out that they maybe didn't do the right things with regards to what

the cause of the accident was or what level of insurance they had and that sort

of thing.

There are obviously adjustors' practices involved in these sorts

of things, because it is insurance. But the Financial Institutions Commission

does regulate that, and the Homeowner Protection Office is happy to look at any

complaints.

N. Simons: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: I just want to bring the attention of the House

to a class of grade 6 from Roberts Creek Elementary School and their teacher Ms.

Rines. They're from my riding, and I'm just happy they're here enjoying the

scintillating debate on Bill 34. Will the House please make them welcome.

[1615]

Debate Continued

Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

D. Thorne: This is another section, and this covers

section

20, which the minister…. I had asked some questions that apparently fit under

this section. I get the new sections and the old sections mixed up, I guess.

I've probably asked most of the questions here before. I had a list of questions

on this, and they had to do with the criteria for owner-builders and what the

changes were.

I'm just stalling for time here now, because I'm just trying to

make sure, Madam Chair, that I haven't left anything out. It's my only

opportunity, and the whole owner-builder and residential builder dichotomy is of

great interest to me.

I think I have all the answers to that

section that I need.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

D. Thorne: Under

section 15, about the notice provisions.

I'm wondering how the notice provisions are different from the existing act.

Hon. R. Coleman: What this

section does is disclosure and

security, and that's why I mentioned that the member might want to talk about

this section. She asked about security earlier.

The purpose of this

section is to establish that an owner-builder

and any subsequent purchaser of an owner-builder home must provide a notice to a

prospective purchaser of the owner-built home disclosing whether the home is

covered by a policy of home warranty insurance. If required by regulation, the

seller must provide another form of security to the buyer.

The significance here is, first of all, that the disclosure notice

informs all prospective purchasers for the first ten years after the home is

occupied that the new home is owner-built and whether it is covered by home

warranty. That's for homes that will be built after the act. It's not

retroactive.

The amendment, though, clarifies that the obligation to provide

the disclosure notice to the prospective purchaser attaches to both the original

owner-builder and subsequent purchasers, which is one of the changes. In the

past somebody would say: "I'm an owner-builder. I'm going to sell it to my

brother Fred. My brother Fred subsequently, two months later, is going to sell

it to you." He doesn't have to disclose that it wasn't built at this stage. He

doesn't actually have to disclose that.

What we're saying is that we want that disclosed now so that

people are protected in the future when they make their decision. Once they make

their decision to buy, they've made their decision to buy. I think

[ Page 8373 ]

caveat emptor probably comes into it at that point, but they should have the

opportunity to know at purchase.

The amendment requires that the disclosure notice be provided

whether or not the new home has home warranty insurance so that even in cases

where home warranty insurance has been purchased by an owner-builder

voluntarily, the new purchaser is aware that the home was built by an

owner-builder rather than by a licensed residential builder. It just gives a

little bit more protection for folks.

The amendment uses the term "prospective purchaser" in order to

clarify that the disclosure notice must be provided prior to the offer for sale

so that the purchaser can take the information into consideration prior to

making an offer of purchase. As we put the regulation and changes in, I think

what will happen is that the real estate association will adapt their property

condition disclosure statements to not just say: "Was this home built by an

owner-builder?"

[1620]

Frankly, if you take my home, which I'm thinking of selling and

which was built back in the 1970s, I have no idea. The ten-year period is gone

on that, but still, it's ten years before the home was built. You didn't know.

You can't….

All it does is ask that one question. The other questions, though,

that would now come into it would be the clarification for the future seller so

that that information would be made available.

Basically, the regulations currently do not include any

requirements for an owner-builder to provide security, so subsequently there

could be a requirement for another form of security instead of home warranty,

which has been retained from the existing act.

All we're doing is keeping what was already in the act with

regards to what might be a form of security that was already in the provisions

before. The home warranty insurance is basically the nub of this thing, even on

an owner-builder.

D. Thorne: I thank the minister for that. That was my next

question. I only had two questions on this one.

I'm just wondering if there would be any conditions other than not

having formal warranty insurance that would require an owner-builder to put up

some other form of security. Would there be anything else, like a bad record or

some former prior disqualification or any of those kinds of things?

Hon. R. Coleman: I've got a short answer. The answer is no.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

section 17.

D. Thorne: I had a lot of questions on this section, but I

did get most of them answered prior to today. There are a few, though, that I

just wanted to have read into the record. So I'll be asking them.

What does this phrase actually mean: "…except to the extent

prescribed by regulation"?

Hon. R. Coleman: The intent is to make the 2-5-10 warranty

— which is two years, five years and ten years for the warranty categories —

clarified in the expectation between the vendor and the subsequent purchasers —

knowing what the warranty is. Regulation will, though, have some exemptions in

there.

I'll give you a couple of exemptions just quickly. For instance,

if somebody buys a home that's under warranty and then turns it into a grow op

and a subsequent purchaser buys that home, within the act — within the

regulation — we will identify that as something that would be an exception.

Certainly, you can't go back on a builder if somebody has put a

bunch of different wiring into the place and basically turned it into a grow op

and it has mould and stuff growing, and what have you.

It's the same thing, for instance, for earthquakes. There are

certain things you can't warranty against. You can warranty the home, but there

are still exemptions that have to be identified by definition in regulation.

[1625]

D. Thorne: I'm wondering how the introduction of time

limits actually affects this

section and to what extent. Is it a big effect, a

large effect?

Hon. R. Coleman: The intent is to make the statutory

warranty mirror what's out there today — two, five and ten years. That's the

accepted standard that has come through all the different studies and things

over the last number of years since the Homeowner Protection Act came into

place. If I understand the member's question, that's what she is asking about.

What this does is puts statutory protection in the act and

identifies what that warranty should be in basic. The insurance providers are

now bound to do that. If somebody wants to actually put a better warranty out

there, they could do that too. But this is the basic warranty that we're saying

is statutory on any new home in British Columbia.

D. Thorne: These time limits will be in law now — as you

say, statutory. So the minister doesn't envision any changes to those time

limits coming from potential changes in the Limitation Act changes. A lot of

changes there, but….

Hon. R. Coleman: No, we don't.

D. Thorne: One final question in this section. I have

mentioned this before to the minister and his staff, and I'm going to raise it

here because I'm not sure under which

section it fits better.

I am concerned about the jurisdictions in British Columbia that

don't have a building permit process at all. This section, it seems to me,

relies heavily on building permits when they talk about dating things from when

a home gets its occupancy permit or knowing when a home was first occupied and

all that kind of language.

We all know many areas where there is no building permit process.

It's pretty tough to capture the kind of

[ Page 8374 ]

information or knowledge that you need to implement securities for potential

buyers in the future, etc., when you really don't have a lot of this

information.

I'm pretty sure it's not covered anywhere else in this act. I'm

wondering if there are any plans or if anything is being done to cover this area

in the near future — as soon as possible, hopefully.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know I did ask about this after your

second reading debates and stuff. Basically, this is the situation. The act

applies throughout the province, first of all. Secondly, the Homeowner

Protection Office enforces it directly in areas without local government

building regulations. They're actually the enforcer if no local government

issues the building permit.

In addition to that, under the commencement and for the statutory

date of warranty, etc., if there is no occupancy permit, determination of the

start date for the period where there is no occupancy permit is generally based

on electrical hookup, telephone or cable billing dates.

We now have occupancy. We have a licensed residential builder who

has to get the warranty to get the licence to build the house. We know that

exists. HPO is basically responsible for unorganized areas.

When the hookup takes place — when there is no occupancy permit,

that's the determination. But it's going to be up to the HPO. Frankly, if I were

the insurance provider, I would want to make sure the occupancy was good before

I actually insured the particular building at its completion. That's how that

works in the unorganized areas.

D. Thorne: I think the minister is being extremely

optimistic, having lived in some of these areas where people don't even hook up

to things. It's sometimes even harder to tell.

[1630]

I guess my last question in this area is: how does the HPO do

that? Do they work with some local people who…? I mean, there are no city

councils, necessarily, in these areas. Do they work with people there? Do they

hire staff who go out? Do they hire more inspectors sort of like the inspectors

we have that go around and inspect houses and give all the information to the

regional districts, etc.? I'm just wondering how you manage to do that in such a

big province.

Hon. R. Coleman: Sometimes the answer is more simple than

we think. Because we're doing what we're doing, an owner-builder now has to go

through the HPO. The owner-builder, as an undertaking of their owner-builder

licensing — of being allowed to be an owner-builder — will get a criteria. But

one of the criteria will also be that they have to advise us when the occupancy

is and when the startup is. That will be part of their licensing as far as being

allowed to build the place in the first place.

That's the owner-builder in unorganized areas. There is still

going to be, I'm sure, somebody who builds a cabin on some place like that. If

I'm the buyer of something like that, I'm going to want to know if it was an

owner-builder, whether it was licensed, whether it was insured. There is going

to be some requirement under, obviously, caveat emptor but, at the same time,

under disclosure with regards to the real estate side, I'm sure.

On the other side of the coin, of course, the licensed builder has

to meet the criteria, the warranty and everything else and would also have to be

caught in that notice back to the HPO.

Sections 17 to 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

D. Thorne: I just have one question. I'm wondering under

what conditions a certificate would be issued by the registrar. Who would it

apply to?

Hon. R. Coleman: What this

section does is…. First of all,

it's modeled after

section 77 of the Safety Standards Act, wherein a prosecution

under this act may not be commenced more than one year after the facts on which

the proceedings are based first come to the knowledge of the registrar or the

compliance officer. That's a pretty important nuance.

If somebody buys a home and a year and a half in they find out

that there weren't certain things in the compliance with regards to…. They

haven't had their warranty delivered to them or whatever the case may be. Under

normal limitations you would say that a year is up and you can't go. This allows

for the registrar to certify when they receive the notice of the complaint, and

then the one year for pursuing that complaint starts then, versus starting

back….

Basically, if it's three years in, it still gives us the ability,

if the complaint comes in, to go forward, because we can certify when the actual

complaint became known.

[1635]

D. Thorne: This applies to all builders — residential

builders and owner-builders?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, it does.

Section 25 approved.

section 26.

D. Thorne: I'm just wondering, on

section 26…. It may be

there, but I haven't been able to see it. Does this change to the act apply to

owner-builders who are already involved in construction, or is it just in the

future?

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't make legislation retroactive, so

it only applies going forward.

Sections 26 and 27 approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 8375 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the

bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:37 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

HOMEOWNER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Bill 34, Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. W. Oppal: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. W. Oppal: In the Legislature today is a grade 7 class

from South Park Elementary School in Tsawwassen. They are accompanied by two

superb teachers, Mr. Brown and Ms. Ritchie, and a number of parents. But what's

particularly noteworthy about this class is that my daughter Jasmine is a member

of the class. Now, I've been told by her not to say anything that would

embarrass her, except I would ask the House make the class feel welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading debate

on Bill 31, Human Rights Code (Mandatory Retirement Elimination) Amendment Act,

Second Reading of Bills

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

(MANDATORY RETIREMENT ELIMINATION)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill now be read a second

time.

Effective January 1, 2008, the Human Rights Code (Mandatory

Retirement Elimination) Amendment Act will protect those over the age of 65

against age discrimination, thereby abolishing mandatory retirement in British

Columbia.

In its December 2006 report, Aging Well in British Columbia ,

the 18-member Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues, led by Dr. Patri